9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 113 - AT - Income TaxNon-granting of deduction u/s.37 - contribution to SPV being 15% of sale proceeds - sale proceeds retained by the monetary committee on the direction of Hon ble Supreme Court by holding that same is in penal nature - Whether it is compensatory in nature incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and hence allowable u/s.37? - HELD THAT - As relying on ASHWATHNARAYANA SINGH AND CO. 2021 (2) TMI 130 - ITAT BANGALORE we direct the Assessing Officer, the contribution to SPV being 15% of sale proceeds under the Category B is to be allowed as expenditure in the Assessment Years under consideration. Asseessee s appeals are allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-granting of deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) charges retained by the Monitoring Committee as directed by the Supreme Court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Non-granting of Deduction under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for SPV Charges: The core issue in these appeals revolves around the disallowance of SPV charges, which were retained by the Monitoring Committee and the Central Empower Committee (CEC) as per the Supreme Court's directions. The assessee argued that these charges, being compensatory in nature, were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and thus should be allowable under Section 37 of the Act. Facts and Arguments: - The assessee claimed SPV charges amounting to 15% of sales done through e-auction, which were retained by the CEC for ameliorative and mitigative measures as directed by the Supreme Court. - The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these charges, arguing that they were not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes and were penal in nature, thus falling under the purview of Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Act, which bars deductions for expenditures incurred for an offence or prohibited by law. - The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, leading the assessee to appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal's Observations: - The Tribunal referred to similar cases, such as Ashwathnarayana Singh and Co. Vs. ACIT, M/s. Ramgad Minerals & Mining Ltd Vs. ACIT, and M/s. Veerabhadrappa Sangapa & Co. Vs. ACIT, where it was held that contributions to the SPV account were not penal but compensatory and necessary for resuming mining operations. - The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's directions for SPV contributions were to ensure the implementation of Reclamation and Rehabilitation (R&R) plans and were a precondition for resuming mining operations under categories 'A' and 'B'. - It was emphasized that the SPV contributions were not a diversion of income by overriding title but an application of income, necessary for carrying out business activities. - The Tribunal highlighted that the SPV contributions were directed by the Supreme Court to be used for socio-economic development, infrastructure development, conservation, and protection of forests, which are essential for the mining business. Conclusion: - The Tribunal concluded that the SPV contributions, being 15% of the sale proceeds under Category 'B', were compensatory and necessary for resuming mining operations. Therefore, these contributions should be considered as expenditures incurred for business purposes and allowed under Section 37(1) of the Act. - The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the SPV contributions as an expenditure for the assessment years under consideration. Final Judgment: - The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the AO was directed to treat the SPV contributions as allowable business expenditures. Pronouncement: - The judgment was pronounced in the open court on the 26th day of February, 2021.
|
